Best 27" Monitor 2014? Eizo ColorEdge CX270 (reduced) vs NEC SpectraView 272

<p>I'm currently on the hunt for a new 27" monitor (pro photographer specialising in portraiture).. I just came across the<a href="http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-eizo-coloredge-cx270-27-inch-black-monitor/p1535933"> eizo coloredge CX270</a> massively reduced at £749.. I've read a lot of great things about the NEC Spectra view range - and both the<a href="http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nec-spectraview-reference-242-led-backlight-24-inch-monitor/p1544989"> reference</a> and <a href="http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nec-spectraview-272-lcd-27-inch-monitor/p1545391">non-reference </a>versions are available at almost the same prices.. £1179-1199.. not clear what the difference is between the two...?</p>

<p>The eizo also comes with calibration gear and has a built in color correction sensor & comes with 5 years warranty... which sounds quite appealing, but I'm so out of date I don't if I'm missing something obvious as to why it's £300 cheaper (The eizo is retailing on other sites for around the same price as the nec models) .. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Are there any other 27" models I should be looking at? I just need something with great resolution, colour accuracy, portrait swivel and a few USB inputs that's not too harsh on the eyes if editing for long periods.. (budget £600-1200)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm so out of date I don't if I'm missing something obvious as to why it's £300 cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you're in Europe where NEC's pricing is so ridiculous along with their silly software policy. Here in the US it's the opposite. The new NEC PA/W's are great, I have that 27" but run SpectraView II. The GB-R LED technology is impressive! Something not available in the ColorEdge. <br>

http://www.slashgear.com/nec-pa272w-monitor-offers-10-bit-wide-color-gamut-and-gb-r-led-backlight-08300563/</p>

<p>I've been "monitoring" 27" monitors of various kinds on the net and in the local stores. The prices are all over the place right now, and my impression is that they are falling rapidly enough that many vendors can't (or don't want to) keep up.</p>

<p>I've decided to continue using my iMac monitor for the time being until the 4K prices stabilize. I think the iMac monitor may be a Sony underneath - but it's really decent for my uses.</p>

<p>Duh, 27" monitor good! Me like 'em.</p>

So the general feeling is that the reduced price Eizo is a good deal, at least for now until 4k units drop in price?

<blockquote>

<p>So the general feeling is that the reduced price Eizo is a good deal, at least for now until 4k units drop in price?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not as far as I'm concerned. The resolution is one thing. I'd far prefer to have a SpectraView at it's current resolution (I drive mine at 2560x1440) with it's fine calibration system, wide gamut and GB-R LED technology than a 4K without that functionality any day of the week. I'd prefer to have software that allows me control over the contrast ratio for calibrating, high bit internal LUT's and the ability to build as many calibration targets for differing output needs that I can switch on the fly. For me it's not about size, it's about calibration such I get really good display to print matching. I'm in no hurry for 4K displays just yet, they have some maturing to do. <br>

The reason 27" display prices are all over the map is the quality of the products and their abilities in terms of gamut, calibration and such are all over the map. <br>

Now when NEC comes out with it's 4K SpectraView, I'll be interested, but that's not here yet and the price will be pretty steep. </p>

<p>Andrew. How do you usually generate calibration targets? I'm only making simple changes to the contrast ratios or the luminance based upon suggestion from here http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/142/How%20To%20Calibrate%20An%20NEC%20Monitor%20With%20SpectraView%20II but would like to learn more. </p>

<p><br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you usually generate calibration targets?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All explained here:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

<br />Thanks. I have read your work many times. Where you have the skills to fine tune your monitor / results I really lack the same. But I have arrived at much better result matching screen image / final results so not all is lost. I will comment the best addition to processing is a good screen. I found a refurbished NEC PA series which I like. <br>

Joe<br>

</p>

<p>I need to point out that the New Dell Ultrasharp monitors that come calibrated from them are about $500 and represent a significant price difference between the upper tier priced models from other companies. I ordered one of the Dell models in February and never got it. So I now refuse to own any of their products.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

From what I've researched, you might want to check out the new HP DreamColour HP Z27x. Specs are bang on and it's going for around $1500 US. They have a 24" version available also for around $600. These are the next generation of the original DreamColour monitor developed in conjunction with Dreamworks Studio and what was the worlds best and also most expensive monitor (by far) at the time.<br>

Today's prices on them seem pretty reasonable though so hopefully they'll have a similar ticket on them when they arrive in Australia as the give both NEC & Eizo a lot to live up to. I'll be getting one for sure if that's the case.<br>

(I'm not affiliated with HP btw.)</p>

<h1 > </h1>

 

<h1 > </h1>

<blockquote>

<p>From what I've researched, you might want to check out the new HP DreamColour HP Z27x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that new? Because the original was quite a nightmare for a number of users. There were a number of posts on the ColorSync list of early adopters who had a lot of issues (search: <em>HP LP2480zx Dreamcolor and Mac 10.6.2</em> back in March 2010). http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users</p>

<p>FWIW, we really need to dismiss this <em>billion's of color's</em> <strong>nonsense</strong> marketing hype display manufacture’s quote. We can't see anything close to that number of colors, nor 16.7 million, a value we can create with simple math and encoding values (2 to the 8th times 3). More colors doesn't mean wider gamut for one. A display may have a 10-bit internal path. It might have a 14-bit internal path. Do the math, you come up with this silly set of numbers of colors. Further, that's just the bit depth of the display, hook one up to a Mac, who's OS doesn't support 10-bit or more and you're just going whatever bit depth of the document data, to the high bit display and back to 8-bits per color. Unless you have a high bit video card, OS, application, it's not a full high bit path. And even if it is, that helps only with a lack of banding on-screen. Billions of colors on paper only, you can't see anything like that number of colors. It's all marketing hogwash, much like the huge contrast ratio's advertised (3000:1, 4000:1). That's great for video and gaming, very poor for photography and soft proofing where the best you might get off a print is a 350:1 contrast ratio. A good calibrated display system will allow one to control both black point and white so we can control and reduce the contrast ratio to match our prints. So in that context, for image editing and soft proofing, anything over 350:1 or such is a waste and shouldn’t impress anyone in terms of buying display system A over display sysetm B. </p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with you there Andrew about the billion colour malarke. For starters, the human eye just isn't a sensitive enough instrument to make those sort of ultra-fine distinctions, much like it can't physically see the difference between 8bit and 16bit images.<br>

What I look for in a monitor is the broadest possible reproduction of the Adobe RGB colour space along with a separate, mode for sRGB emulation as calibration alone will not give your that. The ability to be able to reproduce blacks and have an even gradation across the whole gamut is also obviously important. These last two point especially are where a lot of the cheaper monitors are lacking.<br>

Even illumination is a must, internal LUT's prefered but not a deal-breaker as long as you have a good graphics card capable of handling multiple profiles. A non-reflective matt surface is also important but be careful as some coatings I've noticed being used produce a colour cast.<br>

Another point I completely agree with Andrew on is that having a simple, push-button system for switching through different calibration targets is a must.<br>

Drift? Well it's not so much of a consideration anymore with these newer monitors (even the cheaper ones) but that doesn't mean you won't have to calibrate. There's always a burn-in period and if you're calibrating to a specific target you'll always need one....apart from it just being prudent as a regular check-up.<br>

Getting all of this in the one unit at a realistic price is obviously the trick and in relation to a previous comment regarding Dell monitors, I've had a lot of success with their U2410 panel, which, if you completely ignore the hideously broken Custom Colour mode, is a very good, accurate and reliable unit that does almost all of the above. They were only about $600 AU at the time, not sure if you can still buy them new.<br>

An excellent resource for technical analysis of monitors is http://www.prad.de/ Somewhat more impartial than some of the others but you'll have to translate the site.<br>

I actually haven't checked if they've reviewed any of the HP monitors yet but you'll find plenty there that they have. <br>

Hope some of this has been useful.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently bought a NEC 272 for $1200 . I already had the spectraview and couldn't be happier. </p>

<p>is the GB-R LED backlight in the NEC 272 worth the £400 extra than the CCFL backlight in the Eizo CX270 or does no one have any experience of those eizo monitors?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is the GB-R LED backlight in the NEC 272 worth the £400 extra than the CCFL backlight in the Eizo CX270...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the intended audience for this kind of display, yes. <br>

LED's last significantly longer than Fluorescent's. They use far less energy. They get up to calibration in seconds instead of minutes (warm up). They are far more stable. The LED's in this newer technology provide a 2D control over color of white, while CFL have none. The PA/W series has approx. 1-2dE better uniformity than former PAxx1 series that used CFL. They can produce a much lower backlight calibration than CFL (- PA241 goes down to ~90cd/m^2 while PA242 achieves ~40cd/m^2 natively.). They can be calibrated without an instrument using MultiProfiler software (free). </p>

<p>ok - thanks! Very helpful. If anyone has any suggestions for other models to look at do let me know!<br>

Otherwise I think I'm leaning towards the nec spectraview 272 - which is on for £1179.. It says it comes with a "CD-ROM with SpectraView® Profiler Software and manual" so I also need to purchase an additional calibration sensor? If so - what would you recommend? I've not used spectraview before.. </p>

<p>I am still looking at the eizo CG276 which is on for £1499 and does use LED backlights.. as well as being 'self calibrating' and comes with 5 years warranty.. don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that?</p>

<p>Yes, you need a colorimeter unless you want to try MultiProfiler (free) which works without an instrument. Not as flexible as SpectraView but an option. If you do go with hardware, I'd get the i1Display-Pro from X-rite. </p>

<p>I think you should look beyond those two products you mentioned because am not quite sure if they are most ideal for photo editing.I will rather go for Eizo CG222W or Nec EA273.If you are still not sure, check <a href="http://www.monitorsforphotoediting.com">here </a>for a list of the best monitors for photo editing.</p>